The First Graduating Class of IFT's Editorial Scholars Program

Abstract

This is the first year of IFT's new professional development initiative designed to support the next generation of editors and reviewers (read more about the program here). One of the highlights has been working with the Early Career Researchers Advisory Board to mentor a select group of Editorial Scholars on issues around peer review, editorial decision making, and academic publishing. We asked the first class of scholars, who will graduate from the program in December, to reflect on what they had learned about peer review from their engagement with the program so far:

Meetha James: It has been my privilege to be part of the first cohort of the IFT Early Career Research Scholar Program. Among the many things I learned, two stand out as I continue contributing to the scientific community through peer review. First is the need for close attention to detail throughout the review process, from the problem statement and test design to the results and discussion. Second, I learned the importance of writing clear, thoughtful comments to editors. In past reviews, I have always been intentional about providing constructive comments to authors, but this program helped me understand how valuable editor comments can be when I share my point of view on the decision and explain the rationale behind my feedback to support editorial decision‑making. I also truly enjoyed getting to know my mentor and the other program leads, whose guidance and encouragement strengthened my confidence as a reviewer.

Mi Jiaqi: Before joining the IFT ECR Scholars Program, I saw an editor mainly as a bridge between authors and reviewers—someone who moves manuscripts through peer review and relays comments. Working through submissions with my mentor, paper by paper, changed that view. I learned to read each manuscript not only as a researcher asking whether the science is sound but through an editor's eyes: Does the work fit the journal's aims? Will it serve the readership? Does it strengthen the journal's standards and reputation? An author asks, “Is my paper good?” An editor also asks, “Is this paper right for this journal, at this time?” The hardest lesson was rejection. Having been on the receiving end myself, I hesitated over early rejections, knowing the months of work behind every submission. But I came to see that a careful, timely desk rejection is not unkindness: It protects reviewers' limited time, spares authors a long wait for a likely negative outcome, and lets them find a more suitable home sooner. I now see editorial work not as manuscript logistics but as stewardship of a journal and the community it serves.

Praveen Kumar Sappati: Learning Humility Through Reviewing Food Science. Working with my mentor and critically reviewing assigned scientific papers have been among the most valuable learning experiences of my academic journey. Initially, I viewed reviewing mainly as an exercise in identifying errors, questioning methods, results and discussion, and providing extensive comments. However, I gradually learned that effective scientific reviewing requires something much deeper: humility. Food science is complex, interdisciplinary, and constantly evolving, making it impossible for anyone to know everything. My mentor taught me that being a good reviewer does not mean having an opinion on everything. Instead, it means having the wisdom to recognize what we know, what we do not know, and where our expertise truly applies. The one-on-one reviewing experience and attending webinars of IFT's Scientific Journals Early Career Researchers program also taught me that criticism should be constructive, objective, and respectful. A reviewer's role is not to prove that the author is wrong but to help make the work clearer, stronger, and more scientifically sound. Perhaps the greatest lesson I learned through this program is that, in science, understanding the limits of our knowledge is itself a form of knowledge.

Clay Swackhamer: One thing I learned in this program is the value of using the “confidential comments to the editor” section to provide a concise summary of my overall assessment. Previously, I always left this field blank because I had no confidential concerns and viewed my feedback as intended primarily for the authors. Through the program, however, I learned that editors not only value the detailed, point-by-point comments from peer reviewers but also a clear statement of the reviewer's overall recommendation and the reasoning behind it.

Considering the review process from the editor's perspective, I now appreciate that a concise summary helps contextualize detailed comments. Rather than requiring editors to infer my overall assessment from a long list of suggestions, a summary clarifies the manuscript's strengths, principal weaknesses, and the basis for my recommendation. For example, one might write, “The study addresses an important question and provides valuable data, but the methods section requires additional detail, and the figures should be revised before the manuscript is suitable for publication.” This complements the detailed comments and helps the editor interpret the review more efficiently.

Ogechukwu Tasie: Being an Early Career Research Scholar (ECRS) has been tremendously beneficial to my career growth. It has indeed been a valuable experience. I have learned that good peer review requires balancing critical evaluation with constructive feedback; identifying weaknesses is only valuable when it helps improve the science. It is not just about correcting a manuscript; it is about being intentional in making the paper great by critically evaluating the work and providing useful, constructive feedback. Being an ECRS has made me more aware of the standards expected for my own research, writing, and scientific reasoning. Because I have had experience from this program reviewing different manuscripts, it has given me insight into finding loopholes and things to avoid when writing my own and has made me reflect on my own work. So, for me, constructive feedback has to be beneficial; the reviewer should strike a balance in their evaluation by providing useful feedback that will improve the manuscript. My mentor and the whole ECRS team have been helpful, providing meetings, webinars, papers, and discussions, and allowing me to review real-world journals. It is a process; I keep learning to provide useful, meaningful feedback that contributes to improving science.

Congratulations to these five graduating scholars!

Apply to join the 2027 cohort of Editorial Scholars by November 20: https://forms.cloud.microsoft/r/LMrja1FbAb

Sincerely,

John Coupland, PhD

Senior Editor, Early Career Researchers

Professor, Pennsylvania State University